Sola Fides or the doctrine of “faith alone” is a detailed subject that requires careful study. Because of this, I’m breaking it down into a series of articles that take one aspect of Sola Fides and examine it in light of Scripture. This is the first article, so I’ll start with the most basic of questions: Does Romans teach Sola Fides?
First, we all agree (or most of us) that Scripture is divinely inspired by God and that Scripture is very accurate. We can see in numerous passages where Scripture analyzes itself in very detailed form (ex. Galations 3:16). Scripture isn’t just accurate, it is perfect in teaching faith and morals. So, we must assume that Scripture would be just as accurate on the most important question, namely “How can I be saved?”
From there let’s look at Paul, the writer of Romans. Paul was by far the most educated of the apostles and keenly aware of the Old Testament and the Truth that Jesus taught. Interestingly enough, Paul used the Greek word for “alone” more than any other New Testament writer. He used it repeatedly throughout his writings. So we can agree that he understood the word “alone” well – he was no scholarly slouch. In addition, Paul used the various versions of the word “faith” over 200 times in his epistles. Again, he knew the word well, as did the Holy Spirit who was directing Paul’s epistles.
So, if Paul was teaching that we are saved by faith alone, how come he never used the two words in conjunction? It’s a simple question, Paul is usually straightforward, so why didn’t he just say, “We are saved by faith alone?” In fact, the only time in the New Testament that the words faith and alone are used together is in James:
James 2:24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Again, Scripture is divinely inspired, so why did God only inspire the words faith and alone to be used together once and condemned in the Bible? I can only think of one reason: we are not saved by faith alone.
God bless,
Jay
I’ll continue this topic as regularly as my schedule allows. I highly recommend everyone read Not by Faith Alone by Sungenis. It is an exhaustive analysis of the topic and the analysis here is directly from it.
Besides Jay's ongoing presentation, I'd recommend reading the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which the Vatican signed with the Lutheran World Federation (whose members represent 98% of Lutherans worldwide) in 1999. The JDDJ indicates how justification sola fide *as understood by Lutherans* (as opposed to Evangelicals, for instance) is legitimate in Catholicism.
According to your introduction you seek to answer the question "Does Romans teach Sola Fides." But you do not answer that question! Your sole assertion is that Paul does not use the words faith and alone back-to-back. You have to admit that is a terribly weak argument.
To suitably cover the question you set out to answer you need to go into far more depth than you did. I know that you may not have time to do an exhaustive examination of the passages in Romans, but surely you can appreciate that any Protestant is unlikely to be swayed by your argument.
Tim,
This is just the first post of several; all of which are likely to cover the same topic: does Paul teach sola fides in Romans. Don't worry, much more is coming.
However, I think this is a pretty decent argument. Why wouldn't have Paul just stated the obvious if that's what he was teaching? How did the Holy Spirit develop a Bible that only condemned this doctrine if it is true? I think the questions and the difficulty of answers is compelling.
God bless,
Jay
I don't think you have given us enough information to form a compelling argument. I could just as easily say "Where does Paul say that faith alone is NOT enough?"
I will withhold further comments until future articles if you are going to continue to prove this, though.
Tim,
The absence of Paul saying faith alone is not enough doesn't prove your point. Paul also doesn't say beer alone is not enough, but we certainly wouldn't argue that he meant to say it.
The question is: The Bible only uses the words faith and alone together once, to condemn the thought that they go together. Doesn't that suggest maybe you're misinterpreting Paul?
I will continue as soon as possible.
God bless,
Jay
"Doesn't that suggest maybe you're misinterpreting Paul?"
In a word, no.
Tim,
I think your misinterpretation is twofold:
1) St. Paul in no place in his epistles teaches, promotes, or even suggests that it is by "faith alone" that Christians are saved when taken in context of the entire book.
2) The themes of St. Paul's epistles are clear that salvation is not based on faith alone but rather on faith working through love, i.e. faith and works. St. Paul constantly speaks of how Christians ought to live, knowing that their life is a reflection of their faith and necessary for receiving the final prize...eternal life.
It's really not anything Catholics are making up...it's in St. Paul's letter to the Romans. For starters look at what St. Paul states in the following verses:
St. Paul then proceeds throughout this first chapter to condemn certain "acts or behaviors".
Throughout Romans 2 & 3 St. Paul deals with faith and "works of the law". We cannot confuse this with good works, for St. Paul throughout this chapter clearly points to the "works of the law" as those "necessary works of the Jewish law" pointing to "Torah" in 2:17-24 and then circumcision in 2:25-29. St. Paul is clearly saying that it is not ritualist acts of the Old Covenant but the living out of faith in Jesus Christ that gives the believer confidence that one day they might be with their Savior in heaven. He continues this train of thought throughout the rest of the letter to the Romans.
In Chapter 4, he appeals to the life of Abraham, interestingly enough the moment he refers to as his faith being reckoned to him as righteousness(Rom 4:3; cf. Gen 15:6), was after Abraham had made is initial covenant with God, showing that Abraham's faith was proactive and visible in the life he led. And then showing how Abraham's faith and good works had even existed before his circumcision (Rom 4:9-11), which the Roman Jewish converts were insisting the Gentile converts undergo.
St. Paul throughout his epistles and in the book of Acts remained constant in his opposition to mandatory circumcision for the Gentile converts. In fact, that was the whole point of discussion at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
St. Paul insists throughout Romans that it is faith and the grace of God that enables the Christian to live a life worthy of God. He doesn't separate faith and the living out this faith, in fact for him, and all the apostles, the two could not be separated. St. Paul clearly points this out in Romans 6 and in other areas of his various epistles.
So Tim, the Christian who attempts to insist that St. Paul is saying that it is faith alone that saves us is "misinterpreting St. Paul".
In Christ,
Joe
As I said, I will withhold comment until you have written more about this. Your argument is, by your admission, incomplete at this point, so I will wait to see what I'm dealing with before responding further.
To anyone,
Faith and works are both important.
But once a person accepts the calling of Jesus and the path chosen for us if we would take it, shouldn't our lives come to more resemble God's goodness? Therefore we as Christians with faith will do good works.
If one has faith and does not do good works, wouldn't that imply that they are going against their faith since that is what it calls them to do?
I don't see how doing good works brings you faith since I know many an atheist who are really good people but refuse to believe in God. Therefore I can't see how works are more important when they can't change a person like faith in God can.
Thus, faith is the most important because works come from it. Which is why I have always been taught "for by grace are ye saved through faith. Not of yourselves it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Through my faith comes my works, not the other way around. I don't get how you can argue differently. But I would like to see you try. ;-)
oops, when i said:
If one has faith and does not do good works, wouldn't that imply that they are going against their faith since that is what it calls them to do?
I meant to imply that their faith really isn't very sound, is it? but when one does good works, that doens't necessarily establish any faith whatsoever.
(then my thought process would transition better) ;-)
One thing that you must understand is that to some, the bible contradicts itself. I am speaking of the books of Romans and James. In Romans, Paul states that Abraham believed and it counted onto him as righteous. In James, James states that Abraham was justified by his works. It appears to be a contradiction unless you understand the underlying them in the two books. In Romans, Paul speaks of justification by God. God knows our hearts. When we profess our faith in God by accepting Christ as our Savior, He(God) knows whether our profession is true or not. He is able to "see" our faith and that is enough for Him. In James, James speaks of justification before men. Men cannot see into the heart of another man. Men cannot "see" into each others heart as God does. James is simply stating that men are justified before other men by their "works". Men know we are sons and daughters of the living God by the fruit that our lives bear. Paul clearly states in Ephesians 2:8 that we have been saved by grace and not works lest any man should boast. This salvation is not based on any work done on our part whether past, present, or future. It is either totally an act of God's grace or not. If God based His decision of our personal salvation on just a tiny, tiny, good work then the Word of God is wrong. You had no hand in your physical birth so why is it hard to believe that your spiritual rebirth does not require your help. Unless a man be born again he can by no means see the kingdom of God(or know the things of God). Please read Ephesians 2: 1 - 10. I have heard the analogy that salvation is like a man who is drowning and is about to go down for the last time under water and is thrown a life preserver. Some would say it is still up to that man to reach out and grab it(works). I say that God clearly teaches something quite the opposite. Just read the above scripture. The analogy is better seen this way. A man is dead and lies at the bottom of the ocean. Just then, someone dives into the ocean swims to the man, brings him to the surface and breathes life into him. The man was dead and is now alive. He put forth no effort. One moment he was dead and the next brought to life. Jesus is the man who dove into the ocean and brought life to the man who had none. Jesus chose to bring the man to life because Jesus loved the man. We love Him because He first loved us.
Peter,
You're wrong on this. You need to go read where in Genesis St. Paul is refering to in Romans 4:3. It is a direct reference to Genesis 15:6:
This was when God made His Covenant with Abram (this was before God changed Abram's name to Abraham). Now look at all that Abram had done prior to that point in obedience to God (Gen 12:1 - 15:5). He had been obedient to God and His commands, it was only after that that his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Romans 6 does clarify that Paul felt it was absolutely necessary to live out one's faith through a life good works, you can also refer to Hebrews 11:1 -13:25. In Hebrews 11, Paul points to the faith that is lived out in the lives of the Patriarchs. Then in Hebrews 12 he commends all believers to keep in mind the example of Christ and the "host of witnesses surrounding us" (the saints and angels)and how they lived and believed, likewise he commends all believers to persevere in that living faith and hope. Finally in Hebrews 13 he lays out the "good works" that all Christians should practice diligently.
Another thing to keep in mind is the context of the book of Romans. Contrary to the common belief of many Protestants, Paul is not speaking about "good works" when he refers to "works" or "works of the law", he is directly referring to the "works" of the Jewish law. In Abraham's case, namely circumcision. That's why in Romans 4:9-15 he spells this out. Paul clearly is pointing to the fact that what makes Abraham a faithful follower isn't that fact that he was circumcised, for circumcision had not been mandated yet by God, but rather it was his faith in God and his obedience to God's Will. Understand that this was a major issue in the Early Church. Jewish Christians were attempting to make it a requirement for Gentile Christians to be circumcised. Read Acts 15 for clarity on this, as well as Romans 2:25-29 and Romans 4. Paul is very opposed to mandated circumcision and in Acts 15 the Church decided it would not be necessary in order for on to be a member of the Catholic Church.
A third point is that to say that James is referring to justification before men is another error. For Abraham was alone with Isaac and God on the mountain (the same mountain Jesus would later be crucified on). Isaac and the the two male servants thought that they were going just to perform a ritual sacrifice. Abraham made the servants stay behind at the beginning of the "third day" when he could see the mountain. Reread Genesis 22. It in no way, shape, or form indicates that this was an act that sought justification in the eyes of men. So how does this justify his faith before men? I would say that something much deeper is being pointed to here. James is making a very important point - that it is Abraham's life of faithful obedience to God's will that causes his faith to be reckoned to him as righteousness. He indicates as much in the verses referring to Abraham:
Take note of James' reference to the book of Genesis here. He is making a direct reference to Genesis 15:6, indicating that this verse was fulfilled because Abraham not only "believed" but "actively believed" meaning his life was full of "good works" in humble obedience to God.
So for you attempt to say that Paul and James are contradicting one another is false. In fact I would say they do just the opposite, they support one another.
In Christ,
Joe